Yes and no Steven.

Yes the evidence for evolution is utterly overwhelming.

But no, I don’t think that ideology-induced blindness or sheer stupidity are incurable.

I don’t think we should for one moment just sit back and accept that a large portion of the populace suffers from these conditions and that a much more sensible outlook on life and our collective future isn’t eminently achievable.

ludwig
the topic is abgenesis
and evolution

eucalypts are a facinating thing
but you dont give any real detail about their evolution
nor about their abgenesis [name names]

i have great love for the strawberry gum ,and the bloodwod eucalypts
but ecalypts common ancestor is not named [nor its ancestoral line back to abgenesis

im sorry i dont see that its mention is any proof of abgenesis nor evolution

i would be only too pleased to respond to facts
that are on topic

but for now im more concerned about the opening your post provided for stevenmeyer not present facts either

as he rightfully says
'ignorance is curable'

we possably disagree about the cure
my cure is give me the facts
[facts about the topic] that explain the topic

but again going to stevenmeyer facts [his quote]
'learn to live with it'

ie the topic is please explain two concepts
with science fact
[clearly the 5 th grade level was aiming too high]

explain it with buzz words
[if thats all they gave you]

or links[able to be accessed [preferably giving a specific part on the link ]
im sick of reading the evolving fairy tale called science via links, because ''the proof is SOMWHERE on some page link''.

i still await some one to explain the subject to the topic
other comments are to be found at abouve link

OUG, it’s a bit rough implying that my posts were not on topic.

The point is that evolution is so obvious if you just open your eyes to the real world…and that evolutionary lineages understandably become progressively less obvious as you go further back in time. There is no reason in the world to think that the same rules didn’t apply way back in the dim distant past than what apply today in regard to the evolutionary process.

I guess that what you initially called ambiogenesis and are now calling abgenesis is actually abiogenesis (or autogenesis) – the development of living organisms from non-living matter.

Did autogenesis happen? Well..of course it did. What was the alternative….some creator going plonk, there’s an amoeba, pfft there’s a cactus, phlump, there’s a walrus! I mean, really…..of cooourse autogenesis happened.

But you could hardly call the development of life from the inorganic realm spontaneous. It would probably have been extremely slow and laborious, with many false starts and dead ends, with long periods of no progress and then rapid-advancement events…very much like the evolution of higher organisms.

It probably took a few million years for the basic organic compounds to organise themselves into replicatable DNA-type sequences in order to get the ball rolling. This would have happened within the primordial soup, along with a zillion other combinations that fell by the wayside. It would pretty much have been a matter of chance, within a set of conducive conditions, in just the same way as genetic combinations and mutations are today…which provide the variation that allows the evolutionary process to operate.

Why OUG does this concept meet with your utter rejection?

At what point do you think evolution is real? I mean, even you (not meaning to be downputting) can surely appreciate that some biological changes are taking place within subsequent generations. What about my point regarding feral cats and cane toads?

LUDWIC you said evolution is obvios[is this the measure of proof?]by genetic standards the rule is clear ecalypts breed ecalypts[thats it]

can you add that different species of ecalypts have been crossed?[if so what was its f1 like]did the f1 cross produce f2[what did they reveal?

im not being mean in asking evolution to explain itself[if its a science it should have law[reveal the laws[reveal the formula]and god forbid
if a true science
REPLICATE

thank you for finally revealing the[topic]name
but your surity[it MUST have happend[please prove that it did]the science says it cant[pasteur et al]

you know that 20 amino acids need to combine for life
that chromosones need a telimere to divide

that division is not recorded outside of a cell membrane[ok if it happend replicate it into a science,but that hasnt happend cause it cant]must have[or probably]isnt any real proof[isnt science[is speculation,not science]

it meets my objection
because it is sold as FACT
but it isnt even legally a science

at what point do i think evolution is real
the micro level[within a species]not into a new species[think it is claimed micro evolutions create a new species[well name that one LAST micro evolution[that divides the species][the ape has 99.999 percent of our genes[but the .0001 still adds up to 80 micro evolutions[not one]the difference

google up the physical difference betwen ape and man[huge numbers]in seconds[speaking in evolutionary time[yet apes 60 species?unchanged;are we related to all of em?

how come all apes look more related to each other than us?

[we share 60 percent of ouyr dna with a bannana,so it is more likely than not we came from a bannana[but clearly we didnt]

of course biological changes take place
but when we breed we get two pair chromosones
what one dont do[ie make mutated rna]the other does

[the defective thus has[usually ]little effect
or if bad effect the beast[mutant]dies

but half its offspring will be completly[genomicly]normal
[via mendelic ratio as proven by the science of genetics]

please reveal your claimed cane toad evo-polutions
and your feral cat evolutions
reveal a living intermediate mutant
cheers

OUG if you SERIOUSLY want to understand the science of evolutionary biology – which I doubt – here are two excellent popular books by the distinguished evolutionary biologist, Sean Carroll:

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo

AND

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

Carroll discusses recent breakthroughs in our understanding of the mechanism of evolution at the molecular level. It should answer many of the questions you pose here.

Of course that's not the end of the story. It never is. Biology is currently a field in which new discoveries are being made all the time.

In the mean time would you care to offer one shred of proof that whatever "holy" text you follow has any connection with the creator of the universe - assuming for the sake of argument that the universe has a creator

OUG, thankyou for inquiring about Eucalyptus crosses (hybrids). They do indeed reveal a lot about evolutionary relationships.

Very distantly related species don’t produce hybrids. Hybrids range from rare individual sterile trees between distantly related species, to more common but still sterile trees between more closely related species, such as between various species of box and ironbark trees, to fertile hybrids between closely related species, such as the different ironbarks.

When hybrids are fertile, they back-cross with the parents and produce second (f2) and subsequent generation hybrids, often resulting in hybrid swarms or intergrade zones where individual trees range in characteristics from one parent to the other, sometimes across a distance of many kilometres.

Hybrid zones are very common, to the extent that it often takes a lot of work to determine which populations represent pure species or core taxa and which represent hybrids or intergrades. This is the situation with the ironbarks across north and central Queensland.

The nature of the hybrids directly reinforces the relationships between species that you would assume if you examined their gross morphology – that is: flowers, nuts, seeds, leaves, etc.

Autogenesis meets with your objection because it is sold as fact. Well, I’m not quite selling it as fact. I’m espousing it to be the only other option to the notion of creation by an intelligent being that can somehow just materialise such things out of the ether. As this latter option seems to be just far tooo ridiculous to even contemplate, it seems that autogenesis simply has to have happened.

Are you willing to come right out and espouse creation as fact…or do you think that there is some doubt and that autogenesis might just be possible?

Ahhh so you can see that evolution is real…within a species. Ok, very good. So then, how could it be real within a species, where you presumably can see it leading to different forms, varieties and subspecies…but not within closely related groups of species?

Love the bit about mutant ninja feral cat cane toads !! M’ mind’s a bogglin over that one! ({ : > o)